DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 04/10/2026. Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 and 22-30 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 3-14,16-20 and 22-30 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “algorithms is” in line 12, needs to be changed to “algorithms are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “stored algorithms” in line 13, needs to be changed to “stored algorithms are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 14, 16-20 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 7 recites: “wherein executing the first algorithm comprises: identifying, by the one or more processors, the first exercise performed by the user based on the first movement data, the first tag identifier, or both”, while claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends, recites: “identifying, by one or more processors of the first wearable device, a first exercise of a plurality of exercises available to a user to perform using the first exercise equipment based on the first tag identifier having a stored association with the first exercise”. According to claim 1, the first exercise is identified based on the first tag identifier and such identifying step is not part of executing the first algorithm. However, claim 7, which depends upon claim 1, recites that the first exercise is identified based on the first movement data, [or] the first tag identifier, or both and such identifying step is part of executing the first algorithm. As such, limitations of claim 7, conflict with those of claim 1. It is unclear how the identification of the first exercise is done, whether or not it is part of executing first algorithm and whether or not the identification of the first exercise is performed twice. The same also applies regarding claim 20, which depends upon independent claim 14, reciting limitations that conflict those of claim 14. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 14 recites: “a wearable device comprising one or more processors, a gyroscope, a memory, a plurality of communication interfaces, and a plurality of sensors”. However, it is unclear whether “a gyroscope” is part of or separate from “a plurality of sensors”. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 and 22-30 recites at least one step or instruction for observation, evaluation or judgement of exercise equipment type data and user’s movement data, performing mathematical calculations using such data and transmitting/notifying the user of the results and prompting the user to perform various actions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG, a mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG or certain methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involve observing the type of exercise equipment, making a judgement regarding an algorithm to be used for determining various parameters including a repetition count, observing the user’s movement data and performing mathematical calculations using such data to determine a repetition count and transmitting the results.
A detailed evaluation of independent claim 1 has been shown below. Although not specifically shown, the same evaluation also applies to independent claims 14. Please note that the underlined portions show the abstract idea, the bolded portions show additional elements, and the statement within the parenthesis clarify the specific abstract idea of the specific limitation.
Specifically, the claims recite:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
detecting, by a near-field communication sensor of a first wearable device, a first radio frequency identification signal indicative of a first tag identifier from a first tag located on a first exercise equipment (i.e. visually observing and mentally identifying a name tag on an exercise equipment; involves observation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG);
identifying, by one or more processors of the first wearable device, a first exercise of a plurality of exercises available to a user to perform using the first exercise equipment based on the first tag identifier having a stored association with the first exercise (i.e., mentally noting/recalling from memory a first exercise that can be performed with the exercise equipment; involving evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
selecting, by the one or more processors of the first wearable device and from a memory of the first wearable device, a first algorithm from a plurality of stored algorithms based on the first exercise having a stored association with the first algorithm, wherein the plurality of stored algorithms is associated with the plurality of exercises available to the user (i.e. mentally choosing a first algorithm to perform calculations for the first exercise; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
receiving, by the one or more processors and from a gyroscope of the first wearable device, first movement data of the user performing the first exercise using the first exercise equipment, wherein the first movement data comprises a first plurality of gyroscopic vectors that represent a movement of the first wearable device in a plurality of dimensions, and wherein each vector of the first plurality of gyroscopic vectors is associated with a plurality of vector indexes corresponding to different aspects of that vector;
executing, by the one or more processors, the first algorithm, wherein executing the first algorithm comprises: discarding a first portion of the first movement data, wherein the first portion of the first movement data corresponds to a first subset of vector indexes of the plurality of vector indexes based at least in part on the first subset of vector indexes not corresponding to the first exercise; and selecting a second portion of the first movement data as a first input to the first algorithm, wherein the second portion of the first movement data corresponds to a second subset of vector indexes of the plurality of vector indexes based at least in part on the second subset of vector indexes corresponding to the first exercise (i.e., mentally or with a pen and paper, filtering data; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
determining, by the one or more processors, when the user has completed one repetition of the first exercise based on executing the first algorithm using only the second portion of the first movement data (i.e., mentally (or manually) perform the calculation to determine repetition count; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical calculations which is grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG); and
transmitting, by an antenna of the first wearable device and to a remote computing device, a record comprising repetition movement data that was received during the one repetition, wherein the repetition movement data comprises the second subset of vector indexes that corresponds to the first exercise and excludes the first subset of vector indexes that do not correspond to the first exercise.
Accordingly, as indicated above, independent claim 1 and 14, each, recites an abstract idea.
Further, the dependent claims 3-13, 16-20 and 22-30 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. For instance, determining performance parameters (claim 3), determining the one repetition by comparing consecutive vectors (claim 4), determining speed/form of the user and comparing them to a predetermined speed/form and notifying the user of the difference (claims 5, 12 and 18), prompting the user to perform exercise/to wear the wearable device (claims 6, 9 and 18), identifying the first exercise (claims 7 and 20), receiving a user input to alter a weight given to the data received (claim 8), maintaining or incrementing the repetition count and prompting the user to start performing another exercise (claim 10), performing the same steps as those recited in claim 1, for another exercise equipment (claim 11), receiving data from another device and aggregating the data with the first data (claim 13), wherein the gyroscope generates thousands of gyroscopic vectors (claim 22), this quantity of vectors being associated with a first computing load, the wearable device lacking sufficient memory or processing power to process, in real time, such quantity, selecting a portion of such quantity being associated with a second lower computing load, and determining the one repetition being at least in part based on the device’s having sufficient memory to process the second computing load (claims 23-24), monitoring heart rate of the user and transmitting an estimated calorie burn based on the heart rate (claim 25), performing the same steps of claim 1 for any number of tags placed on the exercise equipment (claims 26-27), accessing different databases (claims 28-29), and wherein the tag is placed on a grip/contact portion of the exercise equipment (claim 30), are limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
More specifically, the additional elements of: one or more processors of one or more wearable devices, a memory of the wearable device, a plurality of tags on exercise equipment(s), one or more sensors of the wearable device including a near-field communication sensor, gyroscope and heart rate sensor, communication interfaces and a display of the one or more wearable device, receiving, by the one or more processors and from the gyroscope of the first wearable device, first movement data of the user performing the first exercise using the first exercise equipment, wherein the first movement data comprises a first plurality of gyroscopic vectors that represent a movement of the first wearable device in a plurality of dimensions, and wherein each vector of the first plurality of gyroscopic vectors is associated with a plurality of vector indexes corresponding to different aspects of that vector; transmitting, by an antenna of the first wearable device and to a remote computing device, a record comprising repetition movement data that was received during the one repetition, wherein the repetition movement data comprises the second subset of vector indexes that corresponds to the first exercise and excludes the first subset of vector indexes that do not correspond to the first exercise, wherein a first quantity of the first plurality of gyroscopic vectors is in an order of thousands of vectors, are generically recited computer elements or conventional sensors and exercise devices or conventional, well-understood and routine activities, in independent claims and their respective dependent claims, which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG. Please note that the courts have recognized that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, retrieving information in memory and filtering (eliminating information) are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions/activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d) for details).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process, mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., one or more processors, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 and 22-30 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: one or more processors of one or more wearable devices, a memory of the wearable device, a plurality of tags on exercise equipment(s), one or more sensors of the wearable device including a near-field communication sensor, gyroscope and heart rate sensor, communication interfaces and a display of the one or more wearable device, receiving, by the one or more processors and from the gyroscope of the first wearable device, first movement data of the user performing the first exercise using the first exercise equipment, wherein the first movement data comprises a first plurality of gyroscopic vectors that represent a movement of the first wearable device in a plurality of dimensions, and wherein each vector of the first plurality of gyroscopic vectors is associated with a plurality of vector indexes corresponding to different aspects of that vector; transmitting, by an antenna of the first wearable device and to a remote computing device, a record comprising repetition movement data that was received during the one repetition, wherein the repetition movement data comprises the second subset of vector indexes that corresponds to the first exercise and excludes the first subset of vector indexes that do not correspond to the first exercise, wherein a first quantity of the first plurality of gyroscopic vectors is in an order of thousands of vectors.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components or conventional sensors and exercise devices or well-understood, routine and conventional functions/activities, which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks in various exercise areas. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Additionally, in light of Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0017]-[0018], [0040], [0053]-[0054] and [0118], the claimed terms wearable device, one or more processors of the wearable device, a memory of the wearable device, one or more sensors of the wearable device (including a near-field communications sensor, heart rate sensor, gyroscope), communication interfaces and a display of the one or more wearable device, are reasonably construed as a generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the one or more processors of the wearable device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in the claims amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method and system of Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 and 22-30 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or mathematical concept) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 and 22-30 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 and 22-30 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 and 22-30 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 and 22-30 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“Prong One
Applicant respectfully submits that currently amended independent claims I and 14 are not directed to "a mental process." The amended independent claims recite specific technical improvements and hardware configurations that cannot be performed in the human mind and represent more than generic computer implementation. In particular, amended independent claim I addresses the specific technical problem of processing a plurality of gyroscopic vectors that represent a movement of the first wearable device in a plurality of dimensions. Amended independent claim I recites a technical solution whereby the system automatically selects relevant vector data while discarding a "first subset of vector indexes [that do] not correspond[] to the first exercise" to support "executing the first algorithm using only the second portion of the first movement data." This represents a concrete technical improvement in computational efficiency for resource-constrained wearable devices.
For example, Paragraph [0036] of the Specification expressly discloses that "the wearable device may track much more information than can be easily transmitted from the wearable device (e.g., for a single repetition, a gyroscope that generates movement may generate thousands of vectors with many index values that may each occupy a portion of memory)," and that to overcome this limitation, "the wearable device may receive vectors representing user movement, select vector indexes, and transmit only the select vector indexes." The Specification further discloses that "[t]ransmitting either only the select vector indexes or a record of repetitions based on the select vector indexes may reduce the bandwidth transmission requirements of the wearable device," resulting in "reduced computing load, longer battery life, the ability to analyze and transmit data in real time, and the ability to transmit other information from the wearable device." See Specification ¶ [0036]. Additionally, Paragraph [0062] discloses that"[s]electing only some of the indexes of the vector may have the advantage of simplifying the algorithm, reducing computing cost, and lowering bandwidth transmission requirements."
These disclosures confirm that the claimed selective vector processing represents a concrete technical improvement to wearable device operation, not merely an abstract idea.
Further, amended independent claim I recites an unconventional approach to movement data processing in which the first wearable device receives first movement data comprising "a first plurality of gyroscopic vectors that represent a movement of the first wearable device in a plurality of dimensions," where "each vector of the first plurality of gyroscopic vectors is associated with a plurality of vector indexes corresponding to different aspects of that vector." Rather than attempting to process all of this multi-dimensional gyroscopic data, the system intelligently "discard[s] a first portion of the first movement data" corresponding to vector indexes that do not correspond to the first exercise, and selects only "a second portion of the first movement data" corresponding to vector indexes that do correspond to the first exercise, such that the first algorithm executes "using only the second portion of the first movement data." Such selective filtering and processing of multi-dimensional gyroscopic vectors based on exercise-specific algorithms is not a mental process but rather a technical solution to computational limitations in wearable devices.
That is, Applicant submits that the human mind is not practically capable of receiving multi-dimensional gyroscopic vector data from a gyroscope of a wearable device, analyzing the plurality of vector indexes corresponding to different aspects of each vector, determining which subset of vector indexes corresponds to an identified exercise, discarding the non-corresponding indexes, and processing the remaining data to determine exercise repetitions. As further recited in newly added dependent claims 22-24, the scale of this data-on the order of thousands of vectors and in real-time-further confirms that such processing is beyond what can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
In determining whether claims are directed to an abstract idea under Prong One, the courts have evaluated whether claims "[have] the specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it." See SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, amended independent claim I does not merely claim the result of counting exercise repetitions, but rather recites a specific technical method for achieving computational efficiency in resource-constrained wearable devices through intelligent data filtering based on exercise-specific algorithms.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Prong One, and is therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Amended independent claim 14 recites similar features to amended independent claim 1 and is therefore also not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-13, 16-20, and 22-30 depend from one of independent claims 1 and 14 and are therefore also not directed to an abstract idea”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. The process of selecting (a first set of) vector indexes, that correspond to the first exercise, from the movement data and discarding the (second set of) vector indexes, that do not correspond to the first exercise, is essentially a process of filtering data. Such data filtering process can be done mentally (see above for details). Filtering content has been found to be abstract by the Federal Circuit (Bascom 2015). According to 2106.04(a)(2) of the MPEP, “[c]laims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”.
Applicant is reminded that abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). In this case, as stated above, the process of “discarding a first portion of the first movement data, wherein the first portion of the first movement data corresponds to a first subset of vector indexes of the plurality of vector indexes based at least in part on the first subset of vector indexes not corresponding to the first exercise, and selecting a second portion of the first movement data as a first input to the first algorithm, wherein the second portion of the first movement data corresponds to a second subset of vector indexes of the plurality of vector indexes based at least in part on the second subset of vector indexes corresponding to the first exercise”, involves evaluation and judgement through comparison of data, which can be performed mentally (with or without a pen and paper) and therefore is a mental process. Please note that according to applicant’s own specification, the filtering process, including discarding a first portion of movement data and selecting a second portion of movement data, is done through comparing received data to an expected data (see ¶ [0063]). Such comparison can be performed mentally, which would involve evaluation and judgement (concepts performed in the human mind).
Please note that with respect to step 2A Prong One, the test for determining whether the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea or not, does not involve considering the technical improvements and/or the unconventional solutions stated in the specification and considering that a human mind is not practically capable of performing a function that is considered as an additional element (i.e., receiving multi-dimensional gyroscopic vector data from a gyroscope of a wearable device). Such test would be performed under step 2A Prong Two and step 2B. Step 2A Prong One, requires determining whether identified limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. As shown above, the identified limitations of independent claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims), involve concepts that can be performed in the human mind, mathematical calculations and managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e., teaching, following rules or instructions), which are grouped under mental processes, mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG. As stated above, a gyroscope and receiving multi-dimensional gyroscopic vector data from the gyroscope are denoted as additional elements which have been considered in step 2A Prong Two and step 2B. The same also applies regarding the newly added dependent claims 22-24. With respect to applicant’s argument that the amended claim 1 does not merely claim the result of counting exercise repetitions, but rather recites a specific technical method for achieving computational efficiency in resource-constrained wearable devices through intelligent data filtering based on exercise-specific algorithms, the Examiner would like to refer the applicant to the above provided examiner statements and mention that the limitations of claim 1 that recite the process of achieving the repetition count, through selecting some data and discarding others (filtering data), is still a process that can be performed mentally (with and without pen and paper), and involve mathematical calculations and is therefore, considered an abstract idea (see above for details).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Prong Two stating:
“Prong Two
Moreover, even if the claims are deemed to recite an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, amended independent claims 1 and 14 integrate the features into a practical application, and are therefore patent eligible under Prong Two.
For example, the amended independent claims recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by solving the technical problem of computational limitations in wearable devices. Other fitness tracking systems either require manual data entry or process all available sensor data regardless of relevance, leading to computational inefficiency. The claimed invention provides an automated system that intelligently filters movement data based on detected exercise equipment, reducing computational load while maintaining accuracy. In particular, amended independent claim 1 recites a specific integration of components-including an NFC sensor for RFID detection, a gyroscope generating multi-dimensional gyroscopic vectors, an antenna for transmitting filtered data, and exercise-specific algorithmic processing-that work together to provide automated exercise tracking with computational efficiency. The features of amended independent claim I are not merely applying an abstract idea on a computer, but rather a specific technical solution to resource constraints in wearable computing devices.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 operates within and solves real-world technical constraints of wearable devices. The solution of selectively discarding vector indexes that do not correspond to a detected exercise while retaining only those vector indexes that do correspond to the exercise represents a meaningful technical improvement that enhances device performance. For example, as disclosed in the Specification at Paragraph [0036], the selective processing approach "may reduce the bandwidth transmission requirements of the wearable device" and results in "reduced computing load, longer battery life, the ability to analyze and transmit data in real time," representing concrete technical improvements in wearable device performance. The claimed transmitting step further reflects this improvement: the transmitted record comprises "the second subset of vector indexes that corresponds to the first exercise and excludes the first subset of vector indexes that do not correspond to the first exercise," confirming that the intelligent filtering produces a tangible, real-world result in the form of reduced data transmission from the wearable device.
Dependent claims 22-24 further reinforce the practical application by specifying the scale of data involved (thousands of vectors and in real-time), the explicit computational load reduction achieved by the filtering, and the resulting ability of the wearable device to process the reduced data set in real time. Dependent claim 25 further integrates heart rate monitoring for calorie bum estimation, demonstrating an additional practical application of the wearable device's multi-sensor architecture. Dependent claims 26-30 recite additional features that further integrate the claimed subject matter into practical applications.
Further, Applicant respectfully notes that the ordered combination of elements in amended independent claim 1 produces the specific technical result of enabling real-time exercise analysis on resource-constrained wearable devices through intelligent data filtering. The claim recites a specific sequence: (1) detecting, via an NFC sensor, RFID signals from a tag on exercise equipment to identify the exercise equipment and a corresponding exercise-specific algorithm; (2) receiving, from a gyroscope of the wearable device, multi-dimensional gyroscopic vector data in which each vector is associated with a plurality of vector indexes corresponding to different aspects of that vector; (3) executing the selected algorithm to intelligently discard vector indexes that do not correspond to the detected exercise while selecting only the vector indexes that do correspond to the detected exercise; (4) determining exercise repetitions based on executing the algorithm using only the selected portion of the movement data; and (5) transmitting, via an antenna, a record comprising only the exercise-relevant vector indexes while excluding the irrelevant vector indexes. This ordered combination produces a specific technical result: the wearable device is able to process gyroscopic movement data and determine exercise repetitions by filtering multi-dimensional vector data down to only the exercise-relevant subset. This represents more than the sum of its parts-the ordered combination of NFC detection, gyroscopic sensing, and data processing with exercise-specific algorithmic filtering that discards irrelevant vector indexes and retains only relevant ones produces the unconventional result of enabling efficient real-time exercise analysis on computationally limited wearable hardware. This specific technical improvement in computational efficiency transforms any alleged abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that each of amended independent claims 1 and 14 satisfy the inquiry of Step 2B (Prong Two) of the subject matter eligibility test, and accordingly each of independent claims 1 and 14 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be reconsidered and withdrawn. Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that new claims 22-30 are also patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated, the additional elements have been recited in a high level of generality. The additional elements (identified above) are conventional and well-known computer elements of a generic computer and sensors and routine activities/functions. As stated above, the limitations involving filtering movement data (discarding a first portion of movement data and selecting a second portion of movement data), recite an abstract idea. Such limitations are not additional elements. Please note that abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). The additional elements of receiving, by the one or more processors and from a gyroscope of the first wearable device, first movement data that comprises a first plurality of gyroscopic vectors, each being associated with vector indexes, and transmitting, by an antenna and to a remote computing device, a record comprising repetition movement data during the one repetition, along with the NFC sensor to detect an RFID tag, are not and do not provide an unconventional solution or improvement to the computer itself or the technology field of wearable device. As stated above, the courts have found that receiving and transmitting data is considered conventional, well-known and routine function of a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Furthermore, according to Applicant’s own specification, the identified additional elements are conventional or well-known. For instance, according to the specification, the wearable device, itself, can be a smart watch, smart bracelet, smart ring, an activity tracker, a device attached to various body parts (hand, wrist, thigh), a glove, etc., (see ¶ [0017] and [0022]), the sensors can include accelerometers, gyroscopes, heart rate sensors, pulse oximeters, electrocardiograms, NFC sensors, wireless antennas, any other sensor and combinations thereof (see ¶ [0018]), the movement data may be captured by a sensor of the wearable device such as an accelerometer or a gyroscope (¶ [0025]). The claims also lack recitation of using any specific machinery or device that is necessary to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to applicant’s similar arguments, repeated throughout the rest of the Remarks, regarding the filtering process/selection of only some data and discarding others, as recited in the specification and the claims provide improvement to the technology and therefore, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the Examiner would like to refer the applicant to the above provided explanation and reiterate that such filtering process is considered abstract idea and an abstract idea cannot provide a practical application or improvement.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims 22-24 that specify the scale of data involves (thousands of vectors and in real-time), the explicit computational load reduction achieved by the filtering, and the resulting ability of the wearable device to process reduced data set in real time, the Examiner would like to mention that regarding the scale of the data (thousands of vectors), such is considered to be part of the type and model of gyroscope that is used. The claim has not specified the type or model of the gyroscope. As for the filtering process, applicant is referred to the above provided explanation. Per applicant’s arguments regarding the result of filtering being the ability to process reduced data set in real time, the Examiner would like to mention that such real-time processing has not been claimed. Please note that claim 23, only recites that the first movement data is associated with a first computing load of the first wearable device to analyze data in real time, wherein the wearable device lacks sufficient memory or processing power to process, in real time, the first quantity of the first plurality of gyroscopic vectors (that are in the order of thousand vectors), and that the second portion of the first movement data is associated with a second computing load that is reduced relative to the first. Claim 23, does not recite any limitations regarding real-time processing of the second portion of the first movement data associated with the second computing load. In addition, a generic computer processor, can and/or does process data in real-time.
Claims 25-30, as stated above, either recite limitations that further define the abstract idea (and thus do not make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generalizing linking the use of the abstract ideal to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Furthermore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
As such, claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 and 22-30 are not patent eligible and stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights